Talk:Pedro Zamora/Archive 1

Archive 1

More deletions without reason

For some reason, a number of editors have deleted quite a bit of material from the article, without giving any reason why, either in their Edit Summaries, or here on this Talk Page. Among the information deleted:

• The fact that he was openly gay was removed from the Intro.
• His entire relationship with Judd Winick, including the fact that they were best friends and roommates, as well as Winick's description of Zamora's abilities as an educator.
• His entire relationship with Sean Sasser, including their marriage ceremony.
• Donna Shalala's part in getting Zamora's family in Cuba visas to the U.S.
• A large amount of information from the Legacy and Tribute section, including one of the organizations started in Zamora's name, and the work Winick did on his behalf.
• All the sources from which the information I added to the article was derived.

In addition, some information was added to or changed in the article without any sources given, such as:

• The date on which Zamora was diagnosed with AIDS was changed, without a source given.
• The quote attributed to Zamora during his speech to Congress was altered to remove the word "gay", even though these were Zamora's quoted words, and a source was provided for them.
• Brian Quintana's comment about Zamora's speech before Congress was not sourced.
• The trust fund that MTV started to pay for Zamora's medical bills was mysteriously changed to a trust fund started by Zamora's Real World roommates.
• Other people were added to the scene of Zamora's death bed when he died, again without a source.

It almost seems as if one of the editors wanted to remove most mentions of Zamora being gay, and any permutation of that fact, such as his relationship with Sasser, as well as aspects of his relationship with Winick. This is unacceptable. The information that was deleted was relevant and appropriate for inclusion, and to delete it without even discussing it or giving a reason for it is definitely not in the best spirit of collaboration that is supposed to be a guiding principle of Wikipedia. Similarly, the information that was changed should be SOURCED. Inserting it without providing a source goes against a major WP guideline. I changed some of these points back, though for some I merely placed source tags. If you insist on changing these things back, then please, let's discuss it. Thanks. Nightscream 06:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Now it appears that 67.94.18.137, one of the people who had previously deleted material from the article that I restored, not only reverted my restoration of it, but placed the tag at the top of the article stating that due to vandalism, protecting the page from anonymous or newly registered users, again without discussing it on this Talk Page, or on my own. If this is a reference to me, well I'm obviously not newly registered nor anonymous, nor were my edits "vandalism", since 67.94.18.137's edits seem to fit that description much better. I've reverted his edtis, but kept the tag in. If this continues, then an administrator will have to be contacted. Nightscream 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

User:65.241.54.157 refers to his most recent edit in his Edit Summary as a "compromise", because he was "Leaving All Winick References". Nonetheless, he continues to remove references to Zamora's sexual orientation, Eric Morganthaler's authorship of the Wall Street Journal article that began Zamora's rise to national prominence, the fact that Winick was his best friend in the Real World house, Donna Shalala's involvement in getting the Zamoras out of Cuba, etc. He also continues to add the completely unsourced assertions that Brian Quintana arranged President Clinton's phone converstation with Pedro to Brian Quintana, and that the trust created to pay for Pedro's medical bills was set up Quintana, Escarano, Mily, and the Real World cast, when text documentation and the actual video of Judd Winick making the announcement make it clear that it was MTV who did this. Nightscream 20:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Bio

I removed it because it read like a cheap celebrity biography, telling a clumsy narrative and constantly referring to Zamora by his first name. This is not the place for love letters or even elegies. I wouldn't oppose it if were significantly cleaned up.---172 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.236.206 (talk • contribs) 02:51, December 30, 2005

It could be trimmed but perhaps not so drastically. You also deleted all the categories, though, which is probably not a good idea since it creates the impression of a vandalism edit. -- Curps 06:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I hear you. I just don't know the sources or the story to be able to clean it up. I think the onus is on the person submitting the new information. This doesn't have to turn into a war as long as they make a real effort to be more objective and encyclopedic. But vandalism is definitely not my intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.236.206 (talk • contribs) 02:58, December 30, 2005

Glad to see you're being sensible and using the talk page. I don't know what the Manual of Style says about first names, but that's easy enough to fix. I'll see what I can to to fix it up. Deltabeignet 07:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, this is a bigger job than I'm ready for. I don't really mind if we use his first name, especially when talking about his family. Feel free to change it, though. Deltabeignet 07:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The entry IS biographical. It's what you find in a reference source. As to whether it is "cheap," or "clumsy," that is your opinion, one for which you provided no elaboration. Without any explanation of what you find wrong with it as it's written, your statements come off as vitriolic and personal, and are in clear violation of Wikipedia's rules on civility.

As for his name, I generally use the subject's last name, as reference sources tend to do. (You'll notice that I do this in Judd Winick's article, for example, including with Zamora.) The reason I did not do this with Zamora in his own article is because the first section of it describes members of his family, including his father, mother, older sister, brothers, etc. Using "Zamora", therefore, would obscure who the entry is referring to at times. Using his given name, therefore, is not only logical, it's what reference sources tend to do.

If you don't know the sources or the story, then you have no business presuming to declare the material subject for complete blanking, as you have done. I spent hours reading those sources carefully when submitting my material, and have provided my sources in both the body of the text, and in the Source section at the bottom of the article, just as I informed you on your own Talk Page several hours ago before you deleted my post. For you to blank out this material for only vague, rhetorical reasons, and then say that you're not familiar with them, to accuse me of "lying", and then delete my post when I try to talk to you on your Talk Page, most certainly smack of vandalism, and is utterly inexcusable.Nightscream 20:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking through the article again, I think I might see areas where it seems a bit more passionate than dispassionate, as in the passage, for example, where it mentions how Zamora starting cryign when given an apple when arriving in the U.S. I'm working today and tomorrow, but as soon as I get a chance, I'll go through both the Zamora and Winick articles, and see if I can trim or condense some sections to make it a bit more streamlined. :-) Happy New Year. Nightscream 20:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone over the article and edited it. I removed passages and details that may have seemed too embellished or not dispassionate enough for an encyclopedia, and which didn't seem relevant enough. This also had the effect of reducing the overall length of the article. I hope 172 and the rest of you appreciate it. Let me know what you think, okay? Nightscream 20:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

clean it up and lock it

This article is too long and doesn't even start to meet wikipedia standards, I'd clean up but it looks like someone has already tried. Who ever is writing this should pick up an encyclopedia. This looks like a fan site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.60 (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

If you have specific examples you can point out, please do so.Nightscream 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Middle name, exact place of death, etc.

Please do not add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Whether a person's birth or death certificates are public is not the issue. They are not provided in the article, and therefore, cannot be verified. As for which hospital he died in, this is not a level of detail that is necessary for the Intro section. But if you want to include it, I'd suggest putting it in the body of the article, in the portion dealing with his death, and only if you can cite the specific article that supports this assertion. Thanks. Nightscream 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when does that public info need to be sourced? I see in no other bio on wikipedia that the specific sourse for a person's birth or death is sourced. Additionally, in the Wall street journal articles it states his full name the name of the town in where he was born and the hospital where he died. Callelinea 20:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to the specific edition of the WSJ that article appeared in? Tabercil 20:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal, September 4, 1994, A-1 as to his fell name and birth date, the other article as to his death. Callelinea 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason any info needs to be sourced is so that it can be validated, particularly if someone challenges it. I challenged your assertion about his middle name because none of the sources I used when editing the article referred to it, and because I notice you've had some prior conflicts with others regarding the content of your edits. I apologize if you take this the wrong way, but I thank you for providing the source; I've added it to the Intro regarding his name. However, you did not respond to the question I asked about the hospital. If you claim that you've looked at other bio articles as a point of reference, can you tell how frequently you see the exact hospital mentioned in which they died in the Intro? Moreover, you state that that info comes from the "the other article as to his death", but that other WSJ article is dated October 21. How can it mention anything about his death, if he died on November 11? I removed that info. If you can clarify this point, and want to re-add it, I would suggest it be put in the article's body, not the Intro. Thanks.Nightscream 05:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cuban history

The detailed history of what Castro did in the 1960s is biassed, and really ireelvant when Zamora was born 10 years later. I will cut down. -- Beardo (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The detailed history is what was stated in the Wall Street Story article and what Hector and Pedro would tell anyone that was writting about him. Not sure I can agree with Beardo that is baised either since that was what Fidel Castro did promise to the Cuban people.. the return to the constituiton of 1940 and free elections; what that is besides the point in this case since we are writting about Pedro's life and what was reported to the Wall Street Journal. Callelinea (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing it again, in the book Pedro and Me, Judd Winick again stated the same story and reasons as to why Hector became disallusioned with the Cuban revolution.Callelinea (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is Beardo's contention that the amount of detail in that passage is not relevant to Zamora's life, and looking at his edit, I agree. Your edit also created a grammatically incorrect sentence, Callelinea. As a compromise, I condensed the sentence, but kept some of the post-revolution description in. Nightscream (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't argue the point but will quote the book PEDRO AND ME by Judd Winick "...His father,Hector, had fought in the Revolution for Fidel Castro, only to be betrayed, Castro ignored his promises of Free Elections and stripped all the citizens of their guns. Pedro said any mention of Castro in their home would bring on a tirade from his father. Hector's outrage was known by the local informants (neighbors who would report back to the government) So life was difficult. They lived with hardships. A tiny house with a dirt floor. His mother never swept; sh'd beat the dirt down with a square piece of wood attached to a broom handle. He didn't remember any paved roads. The only family in town with a television would set it in a window so that children could sit in the yard and watch. Food was scarce. After working since dawn, Hector would come home with whatever goods he was able to get. Pedro's mother would go trade on the black market for food. And when she returned, the family would finally eat." At least here in the talk page the readers can get a feel of the hardships Pedro and his family went through 20 years after the Cuban revolution took place.Callelinea (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If you "won't argue the point", then why provide such a long quote? This pretty much exemplifies the problem you seem to have communicating coherently with others. All valid arguments must be for some specific point, or position. If not, then what is the purpose for posting such a quote? To prove what's in Pedro and Me? I have the book. To illustrate Castro's regime and the family's hardships? To the extent that it is relevant to Pedro Zamora, a proper amount of such material is already in the article. Didn't you read it? Providing excruciating detail regarding Castro's rights violations isn't the issue. The issue is how much detail of that is relevant enough to illustrate Pedro's life in his article.. Wikipedia is not about making a point. Nightscream (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Early Life

I can't believe someone went and re-added in the unverified and almost mythical story of Pedro's supposed childhood in Cuba. I had removed it because of its irrelevance, lack of sources, and plain dumbness. Priestesses of Santeria predicting he will save lives?! The HIV infected population has more than doubled since the time Mr. Zamora appeared on MTV. While I am sure he had only the best intentions, he was no saint, and certainly does not deserve this shoddy tribute, which aims to accord him Herculean stature. Since I see how important it is to some Wiki editor, I won't remove it again. But one feels incredibly dumb as they read about his so-called birth, it's as if he's the Savior! In truth, he was just a slutty, not-so-intelligent, young homosexual, whose depraved sexual behavior led to his demise of AIDS. Not that he or anyone else deserves it. One could argue that he redeemed himself by appearing on this trite television show, Real World, and put a face on HIV/AIDS. However, it's sheer revisionist history...the rising HIV/AIDS rates speak for themselves. The long and short of it is that he just provided entertainment value for a population that needed a soap-opera-ish story of a young, handsome, tragic hero, who is unable to save himself from a disease but wants to save others. TRITE! - Alberto Romano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.80.11 (talk • contribs) 20:36, June 18, 2006

I will respond to these points in order:

its irrelevance, lack of sources, and plain dumbness. The notion that there is a "lack of sources" is clearly untrue, since the source is Pedro and Me, which I provided at the bottom of the article, as per WP policy. Whether you find it "dumb" is your personal opinion, and therefore, not relevant to the discussion, in light of WP's NPOV policy. So long as the article is merely describing a belief held by others, and not advocating that belief itself, then the material is perfectly appropriate, much as it would in any other biographical article that references the subject's beliefs. As for relevance, read on:

Priestesses of Santeria predicting he will save lives?! The HIV infected population has more than doubled since the time Mr. Zamora appeared on MTV. The material is not irrelevant. The cultural beliefs of Zamora, his parents and his family tie into his background and early influences. Any number of articles on other people reference their personal or religious beliefs. The passage about the priestess is not intended to establish that a prophecy was fulfilled. It was merely meant to relate an incident from his early childhood, in order to illustrate how he was regarded among his family and community. The size of the HIV-infected population since the time of his appearances on MTV, therefore, is completely irrelevant. The article, after all, never states or even implies that he helped reduce rates of HIV infection, but merely that he helped humanize those with the disease. If you had read the article (even just the Intro), then you'd know this, so arguing about rates of infection is just a Straw Man.

While I am sure he had only the best intentions, he was no saint, and certainly does not deserve this shoddy tribute, which aims to accord him Herculean stature. But one feels incredibly dumb as they read about his so-called birth, it's as if he's the Savior! In truth, he was just a slutty, not-so-intelligent, young homosexual, whose depraved sexual behavior led to his demise of AIDS. Again, none of these points bear any relevance to the article, or to the quetion of whether the material I provided is appropriate for inclusion. If anything, this post by you seems to indicate that it is your contributions that are of dubious validity, since it seems that you are guided more by an animus towards Zamora than an interest in helping to create a good encyclopeida article. The article is about Zamora. It is not about the size of the HIV-infected population, whether he was "slutty", "depraved", or the "Savior". As for whether he was "not so intelligent", well, as the article makes clear, he was an honors student, President of the Science Club, voted Most Intellectual, and had the grades to enter any college he wanted.

it's sheer revisionist history...the rising HIV/AIDS rates speak for themselves. Okay. What's the "real" history, and in what way have my contributions revised it? For my part, I never added any material on HIV rates. So why you keep bringing this up in relation to how Zamora was regarded by his community when he was born is beyond me. If you can demonstrate the relationship between these things, please do so. Nightscream 02:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Nightscream. I agree with the points you made and you handled it well. Thank goodness you got here before me. I would only incite a flamewar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrowningInRoyalty (talk • contribs) 19:11, June 20, 2006

I think that your statement is a little homophobic, but that it brings up a good point: this biography is WAY over bloated. We don't need to hear about some mythical happenings surrounding his birth. Give where he was born, his family, a basic, realistic description of where he's from and his early life, and then talk about his later life for maybe a little while, but stop acting like Wikipedia is actually Pedro Zamora's own tribute site. Vaguely 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand how his cultural & religious beliefs are pertinent to his early history, but that segment, sourced or not, basically places Mr. Zamora into a state of martyrdom. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedic reference. It is overtly emotional & entirely sensational. Seeing as how this is not a candlelit vigil, it should be edited.I'm not lazy, I just lack motivation. (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've trimmed a bit of it but in fairness much of it is exactly what would be in the article if it were fully vetted and better written. Yes, it shows some mythologizing but that content simply needs better writing and editing, not deletion. Benjiboi 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I does look better now, though I restored the passage about how he dealt with her passing, as it is relevant, and sourced. And don't forget to sign your posts. :-) Nightscream (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No prob, I forgot to eat dinner so am slipping up, I'll go get something now. -- Banjeboi 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Brian Quintana redux

There was a mention in one of the sources I used on the Wikipedia article on Brian Quintana in the Advocate about a story involving Brian and Pedro, but it wasn't available on their site. I've since run down two copies elsewhere: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Using+Pedro-a020908546 and http://www.frumpy.com/pedroandme/press/advocate07071998.html. Maybe someone would like to fold them into the article. Tabercil (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

High School

The article says that he donated blood his junior year, received a letter and month and a half later threw it aways and then was tested six months after that. That would be a total of seven and half months (most of his junior year) and then the article says he workes hard to graduate from high school and finished a year early (a year early would mean the end of his junior year) This makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.117.218 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It was supposed to say weeks later, not six months. I fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out. Nightscream (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture in Hospital

I took the picture off because nobody wants to be remembered like that --- he is a hero, and the family should of never let that pic to been of taken, and it should not be posted on this site dedicated to him!!!! If you were dying, would you want a pic of you like that? I know he wouldnt! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.185.241.152 (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You have not provided a valid reason for removing the image, so I have restored it. --Geniac (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This site is not "dedicated to him." This site is a general knowledge encyclopedia, not a memorial webpage, and it really isn't your place to determine what his loved ones should or should not have done. Nightscream (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As the person who took the picture, a friend of his and his family, Pedro would of wanted his picture posted. So that people can see what AIDS can do to a person. He was more than a smiling face, he was a person that lived with AIDS and died because of it. People still die of AIDS, people still have unprotected sex. So this picture is important to show what can happen, and does happen. Callelinea (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)